Was the ICC right in sacking Hair?

On Saturday, the International Cricket Council sacked Australian umpire Darrell Hair for his involvement in the Oval Test fiasco.

According to former English opener Geoffrey Boycott, Hair had tried playing 'God' when he penalised Pakistan for ball-tampering in the fourth Test against England.

The match was deemed forfeited by Pakistan. The cricket world was divided over Hair's decision.

Hair stirred another uproar when the ICC revealed that he had offered to retire in exchange for $500,000. He was subsequently removed from the umpires panel for the Champions Trophy in India, the ICC citing that his presence would be a security threat.

Now, with Hair being dropped from the ICC's elite panel, Cricket Australia has demanded an explanation. It wants the ICC to allow the umpire to officiate in domestic cricket. The English Cricket Board too wants Hair to referee county games.

While the Australian bore the brunt of all the hostility and eventually lost his job, the umpire officiating at the other end in the controversial match, Billy Doctrove, has escaped Hair's fate.

Is it fair to only blame Hair for the controversy? Is his sacking too harsh? Did the ICC cave into the Pakistan Cricket Board's demands that Hair never stand in a Test or One-Day International game again?